It’s an extreme example of two wrongs don’t make a right. What I’m saying is yes, it’s wrong, but we need to go back in the other direction. We need to take the machine (the steel barn) off the top of the chickens and let them run around outside in the sunshine and grass like they’re supposed to.
Because the unethical treatment of animals is not that we eat them. Nothing is more natural than that. It’s part of life.
I’m saying it’s unethical not to eat meat. And it’s even worse – despite what the author and so-called “ethical” vegetarians try to tell you – to try to manufacture new foods from grains to replace meat. Because these cultivated crops kill more animals and ruin the ecosystem more than any amount of meat-eating ever has or ever could.
But in the real world, you have to participate and play the game.
It’s the same game we’ve played successfully for millions of years until they wanted to change it. You borrow energy by eating meat. Then one day you get eaten, and you give it back.
We’re not really at the top of the food pyramid when we eat meat. Because it’s not a pyramid at all. It’s a circle. And you’re a part of it.
Vegetarians who convert back to meat eating have matured. They’ve stopped clinging to childlike arguments and wishful thinking. They act with what the ancients call “adult knowledge.”
Adult knowledge is what our primitive ancestors knew instinctively. That we’re indebted to nature from the moment we’re born. We’re dependent on other living creatures.
Almost every creature ends up as some other creature’s dinner. As I said, it’s a circle, and even the animals at the “top” aren’t at the top. Look at the lion. King of the jungle. Most feared predator in its domain... yet at the end of its life, it becomes food for a pack of hyenas.
Do vegetarians want to put a stop to that, too? It’s hypocritical thinking. Why do animals – who are apparently deprived of their “rights” if they become our food – have the right to survive in the wild at the expense of other animals, but humans don’t?
The truth is, vegetarians, vegans and people like the NY Times author of the article “A Chicken Without Guilt” that I mentioned in the Health Confidential letter above are drawing an arbitrary line when deciding which fellow-creatures are worthy of protection
Most of us wouldn’t eat another human being even if our lives depended on it. But that’s arbitrary as far as nature goes. Other animals do eat their own. It seems to me that vegetarians are simply making an arbitrary stand at some point on the “cuteness” spectrum.
Even if you were to become a vegetarian you cause more animal death. Because meat on your plate is just one life. But what you have to think about is all the animal lives it costs to put annually grown crops on your plate.
If you’re eating something like pasta, that came from a field of wheat, you killed off all the wolves, all the foxes, all the rabbits, half of the birds, all the insects, all the small animals that eat the insects...
And because there are so many people who eat so much of that stuff, you killed off whole regional ecosystems. Gone, because you thought that eating corn and wheat was better than eating the deer and the rabbits that live there now, naturally.
For example, take Kansas and Illinois, two states that have both forest and prairie, and compare the animals that used to roam free there with what they have now.
Did you know that the Illinois listing of endangered and threatened animals goes on for four pages? It includes the timber wolf, more than 30 kinds of fish, butterflies, dragonflies, frogs, snakes, crayfish and owls.
The Kansas list looks similar. And do you know what the Kansas state animal is? The American buffalo. Buffalo and Indian in their hunter-gatherer societies existed together for thousands of years, with negligible impact. I think you know the rest of the story there.
And if you look at other places around the world where people remain hunter-gatherers, their effect on the environment has been negligible, too.
This should be a rally cry for converts. Former vegetarians who now eat meat understand this concept. When you purchase grass-fed meat from small, independent ranchers, it’s sustainable.
And much healthier than commercial meat – or no meat at all. For example, the eggs from pasture-raised chickens are incredible.
I helped my friend A.N. convert her farm in Loxahatchee, Florida – a few miles from my clinic – over to producing soy feed-free, organic eggs.
Pretty soon, the hens she and her husband tend started producing the most delicious eggs I had ever tasted. Then she started bringing them to my staff by the dozen.
Not long after her eggs became such a big hit, I decided to have a study done on them. We had a lab in Chicago test them and measure to see how they compared to eggs you can buy at a grocery store.
The organic eggs my staff and I eat have:
And that’s just the eggs. Free-range chicken is healthier, too. More protein per serving, and more B vitamins, especially B12, which we’re already deficient in.
The answer, then, isn’t to make the barn into a giant machine that produces fake chicken “meat” from grains and soy. The answer is to take the barn off the chickens, and take the grains and soy out of their diet.
The good news is, free-range eggs and pasture-raised poultry are becoming more popular, and so farmers are responding by supply more of them to the market. You can now get them both locally and over the Internet.
You can buy pasture-raised chicken from sites like: